Early in the vid BB A3s cold calls your 3 bet from CO. Is there a stack depth this would have any merit, one where a 4 bet would keep the spr high? Or is this just a mistake at any depth?
4:45 where BB cold calls the 3 bet. Makes nut flush but post flop checks down all 3 streets 3-way. Guessing just a recreational trying to cooler the PFR and disregarding the 3 bettor?
2:50 mark AsKh on Ac-9d-7c board I double checked solver where AK is jamming without a club as well as some AQ without a club at a lower frequency. On low boards such as 7s-6d-2d board I noticed over pairs with the diamond prefer 3 betting the flop and without a diamond they prefer to just call.
Question is why does solver prefer to unblock clubs on Ac-9d-7c but block potential flush draws on 762dd? Do you have some type of heuristic I can follow on when to use blockers vs unblockers?
Likely because Ak without a club and Aq without a club are value jamming/protecting their equity in the first hand unblocking villain's flush draws that call off. Meanwhile the Ak with Kc blocks their higher equity draws that could raise calloff meaning you are essentially denying their extremely low equity bluffs and getting it in vs their polarised much stronger value region.
If you get in overpair with diamond on the second board you have more equity when behind and more equity vs the draws that raise calloff blocking one of their potential outs. if you get in an overpair no diamond you have less equity vs the draws and are drawing very thin when behind.
on Ac9x7c when you get XR and jammed there are still a lot of combo draws that are going to call off such as Jc9c or JcTc? yes, the AxKc or AxQc do block some other more naked flush draws, but still seems we would want a redraw to their sets / 2 pair hands and block 1 out to their combo draws. The other 762dd board mention similar concept above. Only thing I can think of is if KcXc and QcXc are raising more often than lower flush draws on the A97cc board. Where 762dd Not having a diamond with a hand like QQ makes them more likely to have a hand like QdJd that stacks off. I think I understand what you are saying, but maybe struggling to see the XR range as a big picture on both boards.
Edit: I went back and played around with the solver for 3 bet pots on Ac9x7c vs 7s6d2d boards and it does look like the raising range on the A97cc board is primarily Kc9c type region and some Qc9c region where JcTc is mostly just calling. It was the XR region I got wrong so the unblocker effects of Kc / Qc makes more sense now.
1) 5 min UTG 2.5 and hero BB AA 3bets 10bb. with AKo BB vs CO earlier went 12bb. I would play this the opposite way where vs UTG would want to go around 13bb, 12bb vs MP, 11bb vs CO and 10bb vs BTN. The UTG player will have a much easier time calling 3 bets thus we are incentivize to charge them more preflop (less FE). Then as ranges get wider for later positions our smaller 3bets have more FE. Qi Yang solved there saying BB can go as high as 7x (17.5bb) vs UTG without losing EV.
2) 6:45 solver doesn't seem to want to raise with 2 pairs. I am not sure why solver is so cautious here. Maybe gives SB a ton of credit for having AQ, 98s, TT, or 77? Doesn't expect SB to call off worse? EV shows a pretty huge blunder by shoving. 2.6x raise still has +EV, but less than calling 0.97 vs 1.31 but shows shoving as -11.9 EV. I do find this strange because SB is donking a wide range on flop / turn as well. One of those solver vs Human spots? After you shove solver is only calling off AQ pure and starting to fold some JJ, TT, & 98s even. Does not seem very accurate to me.
3) Sitting out half way through and staying sharp around 21min mark shows a very strong mental game!
4) When you're talking about 3 betting or 4 betting 10-20% frequency in certain spots with certain combos, would you just pure raising these combos in anonymous pools? I am not sure of my pools defending frequency being over folding or over calling, but I do know for 100% fact they are not 4 betting without a very strong hand. Just not sure if balanced is important at all in anonymous zoom type pools.
5) I hope this is part 1 of 5? Would love to see four more parts of this at least!
1) Everyone will have differing views on sizings here. You stated BB can go up to 7x without losing EV (therefore I assume not gaining ev either). So it should not matter which size we really use as long as we at least 4x. If you want to get very technical then you can argue to use a size you are familiar with that population is not to try and force them to make more errors and thus generate you additional EV.
2) Would be bad to follow a solver solution in this hand as villain has cold called pre and then taken this specific line with these sizings are a clear indication he is a recreational. He likely has a ton of draws and overplayed hands that have taken this line that we can get value from and require urgent protection against. Therefore I like a jam.
3) Ty
4) Possibly if you run MDA and find the pools are weak and overly fold (most likely) then you can likely run wild and go crazy, yes.
5) Just a stand alone 200z video as I try to cater for peoples' different tastes. Glad you enjoyed it.
Min 23:09 when you say it's good exercise everytime we bet or raise think about which hands we have as value and which hands we have as a bluff to me it's easy to think about the type of hands that are good bluff candidates because of bloquers and why not.
However, I struggle thinking about the proportion of value/range I want to have in an equilibrium situation, I understand this is essential math but any tip regarding this?
For instance, in your hand that you cr QJ and you have a straight you give your opponent pot odds of 33% so I assume that you need 2 combos of value for every bluff you decide to include no? Obviously this is assuming we want to play "gto". An again in this spot how you would estimate your bluffs in order that you dont overbluuff this spot or underbluff? If you have 12 combos of QJ how do you decide which 4-5 combos of bluff you will include? You do it with the flopw or there is a more structured stimation on your head?
I hope it makes sense my question ;)
Big fan of your videos fwiw.
Balancing bluffs to value ratios is not as important on earlier streets due to there being more cards to come. On the river where the decision is static and you/they either have the best hand outright or do not, making it a very different situation. Essentially, if you have more strong hands flopped that can check raise aggressively now, you can check raise more bluffs and can therefore be more liberal with hand selection - Normally take something that lacks showdown value and can improve by turn-river to the best hand.
Therefore you generally want to leverage more bluffs on earlier streets on boards where you flop many strong hands that villain cannot thus giving you a nut advantage (range advantage at the top ends of the ranges). This is because you have more nuts and can therefore leverage greater fold equity meaning you can bluff wider. If you don't do this and check raise potential draws aggressively that could improve to the best hand by the river, then you will have a check raising range that is extremely nutted and opponent can hero fold more liberally.
I’ve been playing exclusively live, so excuse my ignorance here. But what is making this a shove?
There’s 48 in middle(before any bets), afterwards, we have 160 back to win a pot of roughly 400, so we need around 40% equity. Maybe closer to 35% because villain will likely have some raise/folds.
If he has 10 value combos(77/99/A9s/A7s), what are you anticipating his raising range to look like here to justify a shove?
Worse Ax, Draws. You jam and get value/protection from any draw (we unblock all of them) and get value vs aq no club which can definitely raise vs depolarised range bet.
Also when he raises so large this becomes even more clearer with our unblockers to every plausible bluff raise.
Loading 17 Comments...
if the villain mucks, please show us what he got :D
Early in the vid BB A3s cold calls your 3 bet from CO. Is there a stack depth this would have any merit, one where a 4 bet would keep the spr high? Or is this just a mistake at any depth?
Timestamp please
4:45 where BB cold calls the 3 bet. Makes nut flush but post flop checks down all 3 streets 3-way. Guessing just a recreational trying to cooler the PFR and disregarding the 3 bettor?

2:50 mark AsKh on Ac-9d-7c board I double checked solver where AK is jamming without a club as well as some AQ without a club at a lower frequency. On low boards such as 7s-6d-2d board I noticed over pairs with the diamond prefer 3 betting the flop and without a diamond they prefer to just call.
Question is why does solver prefer to unblock clubs on Ac-9d-7c but block potential flush draws on 762dd? Do you have some type of heuristic I can follow on when to use blockers vs unblockers?
Likely because Ak without a club and Aq without a club are value jamming/protecting their equity in the first hand unblocking villain's flush draws that call off. Meanwhile the Ak with Kc blocks their higher equity draws that could raise calloff meaning you are essentially denying their extremely low equity bluffs and getting it in vs their polarised much stronger value region.
If you get in overpair with diamond on the second board you have more equity when behind and more equity vs the draws that raise calloff blocking one of their potential outs. if you get in an overpair no diamond you have less equity vs the draws and are drawing very thin when behind.
on Ac9x7c when you get XR and jammed there are still a lot of combo draws that are going to call off such as Jc9c or JcTc? yes, the AxKc or AxQc do block some other more naked flush draws, but still seems we would want a redraw to their sets / 2 pair hands and block 1 out to their combo draws. The other 762dd board mention similar concept above. Only thing I can think of is if KcXc and QcXc are raising more often than lower flush draws on the A97cc board. Where 762dd Not having a diamond with a hand like QQ makes them more likely to have a hand like QdJd that stacks off. I think I understand what you are saying, but maybe struggling to see the XR range as a big picture on both boards.
Edit: I went back and played around with the solver for 3 bet pots on Ac9x7c vs 7s6d2d boards and it does look like the raising range on the A97cc board is primarily Kc9c type region and some Qc9c region where JcTc is mostly just calling. It was the XR region I got wrong so the unblocker effects of Kc / Qc makes more sense now.
Thanks for the help on this Henry Lister
1) 5 min UTG 2.5 and hero BB AA 3bets 10bb. with AKo BB vs CO earlier went 12bb. I would play this the opposite way where vs UTG would want to go around 13bb, 12bb vs MP, 11bb vs CO and 10bb vs BTN. The UTG player will have a much easier time calling 3 bets thus we are incentivize to charge them more preflop (less FE). Then as ranges get wider for later positions our smaller 3bets have more FE. Qi Yang solved there saying BB can go as high as 7x (17.5bb) vs UTG without losing EV.
2) 6:45 solver doesn't seem to want to raise with 2 pairs. I am not sure why solver is so cautious here. Maybe gives SB a ton of credit for having AQ, 98s, TT, or 77? Doesn't expect SB to call off worse? EV shows a pretty huge blunder by shoving. 2.6x raise still has +EV, but less than calling 0.97 vs 1.31 but shows shoving as -11.9 EV. I do find this strange because SB is donking a wide range on flop / turn as well. One of those solver vs Human spots? After you shove solver is only calling off AQ pure and starting to fold some JJ, TT, & 98s even. Does not seem very accurate to me.
3) Sitting out half way through and staying sharp around 21min mark shows a very strong mental game!
4) When you're talking about 3 betting or 4 betting 10-20% frequency in certain spots with certain combos, would you just pure raising these combos in anonymous pools? I am not sure of my pools defending frequency being over folding or over calling, but I do know for 100% fact they are not 4 betting without a very strong hand. Just not sure if balanced is important at all in anonymous zoom type pools.
5) I hope this is part 1 of 5? Would love to see four more parts of this at least!
1) Everyone will have differing views on sizings here. You stated BB can go up to 7x without losing EV (therefore I assume not gaining ev either). So it should not matter which size we really use as long as we at least 4x. If you want to get very technical then you can argue to use a size you are familiar with that population is not to try and force them to make more errors and thus generate you additional EV.
2) Would be bad to follow a solver solution in this hand as villain has cold called pre and then taken this specific line with these sizings are a clear indication he is a recreational. He likely has a ton of draws and overplayed hands that have taken this line that we can get value from and require urgent protection against. Therefore I like a jam.
3) Ty
4) Possibly if you run MDA and find the pools are weak and overly fold (most likely) then you can likely run wild and go crazy, yes.
5) Just a stand alone 200z video as I try to cater for peoples' different tastes. Glad you enjoyed it.
Henry Lister
Stars has a switch to BB function:
Thanks
Min 23:09 when you say it's good exercise everytime we bet or raise think about which hands we have as value and which hands we have as a bluff to me it's easy to think about the type of hands that are good bluff candidates because of bloquers and why not.
However, I struggle thinking about the proportion of value/range I want to have in an equilibrium situation, I understand this is essential math but any tip regarding this?
For instance, in your hand that you cr QJ and you have a straight you give your opponent pot odds of 33% so I assume that you need 2 combos of value for every bluff you decide to include no? Obviously this is assuming we want to play "gto". An again in this spot how you would estimate your bluffs in order that you dont overbluuff this spot or underbluff? If you have 12 combos of QJ how do you decide which 4-5 combos of bluff you will include? You do it with the flopw or there is a more structured stimation on your head?
I hope it makes sense my question ;)
Big fan of your videos fwiw.
Also in this spot you could have 76 too so this means much ore number of value hands.
Balancing bluffs to value ratios is not as important on earlier streets due to there being more cards to come. On the river where the decision is static and you/they either have the best hand outright or do not, making it a very different situation. Essentially, if you have more strong hands flopped that can check raise aggressively now, you can check raise more bluffs and can therefore be more liberal with hand selection - Normally take something that lacks showdown value and can improve by turn-river to the best hand.
Therefore you generally want to leverage more bluffs on earlier streets on boards where you flop many strong hands that villain cannot thus giving you a nut advantage (range advantage at the top ends of the ranges). This is because you have more nuts and can therefore leverage greater fold equity meaning you can bluff wider. If you don't do this and check raise potential draws aggressively that could improve to the best hand by the river, then you will have a check raising range that is extremely nutted and opponent can hero fold more liberally.
2:50 - AK on A79cc
I’ve been playing exclusively live, so excuse my ignorance here. But what is making this a shove?
There’s 48 in middle(before any bets), afterwards, we have 160 back to win a pot of roughly 400, so we need around 40% equity. Maybe closer to 35% because villain will likely have some raise/folds.
If he has 10 value combos(77/99/A9s/A7s), what are you anticipating his raising range to look like here to justify a shove?
Worse Ax, Draws. You jam and get value/protection from any draw (we unblock all of them) and get value vs aq no club which can definitely raise vs depolarised range bet.
Also when he raises so large this becomes even more clearer with our unblockers to every plausible bluff raise.
Pool looks great to be honest, plenty of weak players who villain to play aggro and spew. Reminded me 5-6 years ago :(
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.